Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 73, 8 February 1862, Page 1 (Supplement)

Sxakf. and Boa-Constrictor.—The Singleton Tiinns says :—A celebrated German naturalist, while exploring for the Victorian Government some five years ago, found a reptile which he termed a small description of boa-constrictor. It was fifteen feet in length, cliinbsd small trees, and was said to live on small animals an*! birds. The accounts of several large snakes found in various parts of New South Wales, recently, to hand, although described under the apparently generic term of carpet-snakes, induce us to suppose "that specimens of reptiles, such as were described by the above-mentioned German naturalist, infest various parts of the colony, and that a few have been found recently. Not long since a snake was killed at St. Clair, over 11 feet in length ; of this we have no description. But last week, Mr. James Beck of Falbrook, killed a monster snake of 13 feet long. Mr. Beck had gone to a creek near his house to cut some saplings, and whilst engaged hacking away at them witli a broad-edged axe, lie heard a rustling, and saw two fearful jaws snapping at him. Involuntarily he raised his weapon, and with vigor, increased by seeing an enormous monster coiling close to him over and about the saplings, he struck it a, blow on the neck as it was making a dart at him, and partially cut its head off. ' The reptile then coiled about and fell to the ground. On returning from his house with a rule he measured it, as well as the dying coils, smothered in ants, would allow ; he found it at least thirteen feet long, and between four and five inches thick in the largest part.— Sydney Empire.

DiiATii from Lockjaw.—The Shellharbour correspondent of the Kitnna Examiner, writing to that journal, says : I have just been informed of an accident of a very singular nature, which occurred last week to a son of Samuel Hocky, residing upon the Yellow Hock Creek. The lad was endeavouring to lead o restive horse up a hill near M'GiU's residence the halter, at the end of which was a loop, being twisted round his hand. By some means the loop cauprht itt a stump, and the lad's fing-era of the rig-lit hand were severed, and left hanging by a mere taok ofthe.skin. Lockjaw ensued, and the poor boy died after two or three days great suffering'.— B, M. JieraU, 36th Pecember.

REVERSAL OF A DECREE OF DIVORCE.

The intervention of the Queen's proctor now makes it almost impossible to obtain a divorce by collusion, or by an evasion of tho statute. Before* | a decree is made absolute, that inexorable functionary may step in with a totally new version of the case, with now evidence, new considerations, and overset the parties. General Lsiutour petitioned the Divorce Court some time ago to relieve him from a long- standing grievance. He had married in IS2G ; in 1532 his wife eloped with a lover, aud had been living with him ever since. In 1834,' the general obtained £1,000 damages, and in 1844 ;i divorce 'a iricnsa efc thoio* from the Ecclesiastical Court. With this money he intended to have paid for an act of Parliament separating him from his wife ; but an attorney, as he alleges, absconded with the money. Hence, being poor, he was obliged to defer proceedings until the Divorce Court was established. He took proceedings ;he laid these statements before the court ; neither the respondent nor th'j corespondent appeared ; and under these circumslaness, with these facts alone before him, the judge could not do otherwise than grunt a decree ' nisi.' Then came the Queen's proctor, aii'l speedily turned the tables on the petitioner. The case assumed a new aspect. It was true that Mrs. Cuutour had eloped, and hud lived ever since with her lover. It was true th( general had obtained damages and a divorce ' a mensa et thoro.' But it was also true that he had imitated his wife, had brought to his house another female companion, had lived with her ever .since, anil hud become the father of an illegitimate family. He thus stood before the court as a man living in adultery. lie was not one of the persons for whose benefit the Legislature had devised menus of relief. Hence the court was boynd to decide against him. Moreover, in petitioning the court, he had concealed the.material fact, winch, indeed, hud it been stated in the petition, would have at once caused its prayer to be rejected. It whs urged that the case was one in which the court had a discretionaiy power to overlook tli« offence which invalidated the petition. But Sir Creswcll Creswell pointed out that the Legislature intended, by the discretionary power given by the 31st section to meet the case of some temporary lapse from purity j of conduct on the part of the married man, which might have happened years before, and which, to use the words of Dr. Lushington in a former case, j might have been " comparatively venial." That wns not the case here. General Lantour had taken the remedy into his own hands. The judge said with truth that he should be putting a, most strange construction upon the act, and showing | that he was totally unfit to be entrusted with the discretionary power, if he did not hold that there was suflicient ground to withhold the divorce. Accordinglythe decree ' nisi' was reversed, and General Latour-was saddled with the cost of the petition. The rule is now clearly established. Neither man aor woman can try to take advantage of the court, except at their peril London Paper.